Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.
I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk
I’m not asking this question, so no need to answer it. I’m just correcting you on three wrong statements you made about the discours about qualia. About what questions are and aren’t involved in the discours. Because you invented your own strawmen questions, and tried to answer those. Anyway, from your answer here and to other comments, it seems, like you completely accept everything that proponents of qualia say about them. They would answer the same way. Do you even have any critique of the concept as such?
I hope I didn’t sound to critical, like I said, I mostly agree with your conclusions, I just think they need more careful arguments.
Oh yeah this aint no thesis paper or anything, I came here for discussion not preaching to the choir. I assume I am wrong but steelman my own beliefs, thats how you grow baby.
But in general I just think asking someone to objectively define red is nonsense. Any subjective agent is incapable of objectivity. Does this undermine my entire argument? Probably? Thats the fun of it.
Ah, I get it. Yes it’s fun 😊